News & Analysis
Jettison the Constitution?
Let's Give Up on the Constitution ... As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions ... Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago. – New York Times
Dominant Social Theme: We need a new approach and strong leaders.
Free-Market Analysis: Our trends for 2013 featured the advance of German-style National Socialism in the US, and this probably qualifies along those lines. The Times article unapologetically makes the argument for doing away with the US Constitution but what is to be substituted and how it is to work is not made clear.
The argument itself is an obvious one, especially as hardly a shred of the so-called Constitution remains, in any case. The Supreme Court routinely defies it, Congress ignores it and the executive branch simply steps around it as necessary.
One can even make the argument that the Constitution was a big step backward from Articles of Confederation that somehow were seen as not "strong enough" for a growing nation. Nonetheless, the Constitution – an entirely illegitimate document within the context of its creation – was launched out of a legislative conference that gathered under strict orders NOT to draft a new document.
As usual, Alexander Hamilton – a man who believed in a strong federal state – was one of the biggest backers of the document, which was purposefully written in a vague way apparently and was in many ways authoritarian in scope simply because it left so much not clarified. The final document created such an uproar that a "Bill of Rights" was finally attached to strengthen it.
The author of this OpEd in the Times has a meaningful point when considered from this vantage point. Louis Michael Seidman is a professor of constitutional law and he has studied the US's dysfunctional Constitution and simply advises that we scrap the document. Here's some more from the article:
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation's fate?
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.
This is what we meant when we wrote above that the Constitution was created via an illegitimate process. What is usually even less discussed than the illegitimacy of the Constitution is WHY those who created this document acted the way they did. Some would submit that the Constitution was simply a way for European banking powers to begin the process of re-establishing control over "these States."
Thomas Jefferson was most suspicious of the Constitution and basically wanted nothing to do with it. He didn't participate in the initial drafting and when he was president, admitted he went beyond its bounds with the Louisiana Purchase.
But where the author goes wrong, in our humble view, is providing us with the rationale for ignoring the Constitution. His point is that the Constitution is making it difficult to govern effectively.
Our point would be that this is an entirely disingenuous argument.
The author might be a constitutional scholar but so is the US statist president, Barack Obama. We would venture a guess that the author's politics are of the leveling kind. The article accepts the basic premise of the modern political and economic machinery and simply seeks to rationalize its effectiveness.
In other words, the author wants to make what is operational now more effective. There is nothing in the article that we can find that voices any great concern over the US military-industrial complex, Federal Reserve fiat money printing or the gradual disintegration of states' rights and rise of the penal-industrial complex and accompanying domestic Intel/fascism.
This suggestion to do away with the Constitution, then, is just one more attack of many that seeks to further liberate Leviathan. At least when authoritarian measures are put into play currently there is the prospect that some constitutional right or obligation can diminish the worst of what is being implemented. Without a recognized constitution even that small possibility would be lost.
One can also make the argument that the US Constitution – as bad as it has been in practice – has been the target of what we call the power elite since its inception. Having provided an impetus for its creation, in our view, the power elite that wants to run the world set about destroying it soon thereafter.
The main problem with the US Constitution and its surrounding language is that it is a statement recognizing the rights of the individual. It provides the powerful statement that those rights are derived from the almighty and are therefore inviolable.
This is a truly intolerable perspective from the standpoint of the powers-that-be that operate via mercantilism and need an entirely unchecked government to be most effective. The modern idea is that everyone's life is subject to the permission of Leviathan and that we all operate under its direction and care.
This is the heart of what is left of a sometimes noble but often ambiguous and even destructive document. It is the part that the elites could not initially excise. It has taken them two centuries to get to a place where a university sophist can suggest doing away with the US Constitution using an entirely utilitarian argument.
The main strength of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is that a Creator grants rights to individuals. This is made clear in the literature, a point that Seidman neglects to make. Actually, he probably does not so much neglect it as avoid it.
Find out more about the evolution of freedom and free markets in this Daily Bell Special Report: "Become Part of an Exclusive Circle: A Unique Free-Market Club Really Worth Joining."
These people, these soulless sophists who are determined to support the creation of a global order, will do anything to deny the idea of individual rights. Seidman comes right and says it, as a matter of fact. He states that what makes the US great is the perception among its people that it is "one nation."
In fact, what made the US great was the inherent individualism of its settlers and the idea that an individual citizen could do great things on his or her own. This is always the case when there is an efflorescence of freedom and prosperity. The proximate cause is individual "human action."
Conclusion: You will find none of these considerations in Seidman's suggestions. He has excised the core of what made the US great and wishes to substitute for it the dead letters of "habit" and nationalism.
Posted by ronb28135 on 01/23/13 10:09 PM
The Constitution of the United States is fine. What is needed is a mechanism for the states to bind the whole government to the Constitution, not dependent upon the unsuccessful checks and balances written into the document. The states created the monster and they can modify or abolish it.
Over the years it has been "tweaked" by corrupt Supreme Courts composed of Justices who were nominated, not for their love of and adherence to the Constitution, but for the political slant of their conduct that appealed to the power elite at the time of their appointment. Roosevelt's success in appointing collectivist oriented Justice's after his unsuccessful threat to pack the court with the same are examples of part of the constitutional problem as illustrated quite well in The Dirty Dozen by Levy and Mellor.
What the constitution lacks is an enforcement amendment. The following proposed amendment will correct that oversight on the part of the Framers, provided that it is adopted unchanged. It does not need any attempts or tweaks to 'make it better.' William J. Watkins, Jr. was conscious of the necessity of the amendment's scope and intent when he drafted it.
Our Founders were men of an age when personal honor had meaning. Their naïveté was evident in the attempt to bind men to the Constitution by the chains of 'checks and balances' which are dependent upon the 'honorableness' of politicians. It hasn't worked. It is time to change that with a constitutional amendment establishing a commission to oversee all federal acts and measures, past and present. It is time to bring the federal government under the control of the states to which it is responsible as their agency of union.
Please do what you can to promote and bring about the adoption of this amendment.
Constitutional Commission Amendment
Section 1. The Constitutional Commission shall settle questions presented by the several states concerning the constitutionality of measures or actions taken by the government of the United States.
Section 2. The Constitutional Commission shall be composed of one Commissioner from each state, elected every second year by the people thereof from two candidates chosen by the state legislature, and the electors chosen by the state legislature, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature; each Commissioner shall have one vote.
Section 3. No person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible for the office of Commissioner; nor shall any person be eligible for the office who shall not have attained the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United States, and been nine years a resident of that state for which he shall be chosen. No person shall be elected to the office of Commissioner more than four times.
Section 4. When vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess in the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall choose two candidates to present to the people to fill the vacancy.
Section 5. The Constitutional Commission shall assemble it least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day in January, unless it shall appoint a different day. The Constitutional Commission shall choose its Chairman and other officers. The Commission shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members, and three-fourths of the Commissioners shall constitute a quorum to do business. The Commission may determine the rules of its proceedings. The commission shall keep a journal of the proceedings, and from time to time publish the same.
Section 6. No Commissioner shall receive compensation for his services out of the Treasury of the United States. No Commissioner shall, during his time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States.
Section 7. Whenever the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission shall receive petitions from one-fifth of the legislatures of the several states requesting a ruling on the constitutionality of a specific measure or action of the government of the United States, the Commission shall convene. The act or measure of the national government shall be void and no force if three-fourths of the Commissioners present vote against its constitutionality.
Section 8. The Constitutional Commission shall not sit as a Convention as prescribed in Article V of the Constitution of the United States.
Reprinted by Ronald L. Burcham (ronb28135@Click to view link)
with the permission of the author, from the book:
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
By William J. Watkins, Jr.
An Independent Institute Book
Published by Palgrave McMillan
Posted by James Jaeger on 01/20/13 04:52 PM
The "power of the sword" held firmly in the hands of WE THE PEOPLE guarantees the longevity of the U.S. Constitution. Check out our interviews of RON PAUL, G. EDWARD GRIFFIN, CHUCK BALDWIN and STEWART RHODES (founder of Oath Keepers) for our new movie, "MOLON LABE - How the Second Amendment Guarantees America's Freedom". Clips are at
Click to view link
Posted by Leviathanfighter on 01/19/13 03:52 AM
Jettisoning the Articles of Confederation was a catastrophic mistake for the states, and we are now feeling the consequences of that mistake in the form of perpetual war and central banking.
Seidman's failure to mention individual rights or human action is very significant and reveals his love for state power as opposed to individual human freedom. His focus is entirely on the state and its need for greater ease in carrying out its lofty, abstract directives of centralized power.
Notice what he says: "... .most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences." It does not seem to have occurred to him that the US is really many nations (states) and that if those nations did not have a repressive federal government interfering in their internal affairs, there would be no need for "working out our differences."
But Seidman does not seem to realize the implications of his ideas, though Libertarians should be able to. If we are to give up on the Constitution, isn't that tantamount to giving up on the "Union" as well? Does that not imply secession of all the states? It does.
But is he arguing for that? Hardly! On the contrary, he is arguing for a freer hand for the police state so that it can tighten its grip on the country and fulfill its goals to serve the New World Order.
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 01/08/13 08:58 PM
@ Mr. Bischoff
OK, just to be clear, you're saying you CAN'T explain why its OK for people DBA "the state/govt" to steal (i.e., "tax") and impose unilateral contracts for "services" neither asked or negotiated for by their "customers"... but its not OK for those w/o fancy political titles to do same... ?
BTW, I was a "constitutionalists" too... until I REALLY listened to the Voluntaryists' SIMPLE, logical, moral arguments and witnessed numerous "constitutionalists" get demolished in debate by same Voluntaryists.
Its a tough idea to accept, I know, but if we allow ourselves to be guided by sentimentality and mythology (which is, indeed, what "constitutionalists" allow themselves to be) instead of cold, hard, reason/logic/evidence... we're not advancing society.
Posted by Joseph E Fasciani on 01/07/13 11:38 PM
Reading this snippet from the NY Times, the doyen of USA daily rags, one is tempted to say that perhaps the time has come to do away with the Grey Lady of pulp fact and fiction. If, in her estimation, the Constitution has outlived its original usefulness simply from time's passing, then perhaps the Grey Lady's outlived her original utility, and it's time for her to dissolve into electron streams.
As for the Constitution itself8 --which Bush 43 snarlingly said was "just a God-damned piece of paper," because his ignorance of history deprived him of knowing it [all 30? copies] was labouriously penned on vellum, as its framers wanted something more durable than mere paper.
At any rate, such scribbles as the NYT employs to fill its pages have shown that in this instance s/he had not a clue as to what the creators of the Constitution intended. Clearly the writer is a modernist, one who believes all matters older than oneself are consigned to the trashbin of history, for ALL that REALLY matters is whatever is happening here and now. For just as we moderns are the inheritors of all that went before, we have only to put the stamp of our peculiar genius on WHATEVER to transform it into the newest gold.
Having read history's records for some fifty years now, I can vouch that there is an axiom the truth of which has never been surpassed. To paraphrase Heraklitus of Ephesus: We cannot step into the stream of history without getting wet, but we MAY learn enough from reading and living it not to slip and drown in it. And our first learning should be to understand that the writers were extremely well-read in the very same histories we peruse, and the conclusions they drew then were valid for their era and ours, equally.
For what they understood was human nature, and how it plays out upon the blood-soaked plains that recede from our view as quickly as we fight and die upon them. They knew passions for good and evil just as juicy and overwhelming as ours, the whole saga of human existence from birth to death, all the hopes, follies, and honours between those natal and fatal moments.
In short, nothing of our personal and communal realities has changed since then, which is why our Constitution is truly 'one for the ages' for all those who value freedom above slavery, whether it be economic or physical.
This is enough for my first comment on this site; you can google or cluuz 'joseph e fasciani' to see what I've posted since 2003.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/06/13 04:40 PM
No Dave I would say that makes you practical.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/06/13 04:38 PM
Yes Ingo I think we agree about most things. Perhaps that is why our dissagreements are so glaring.
It surprizes me that you would describe our present capitalist production mixed with socialist distribution without mentioning fascism, since that is what fascism is.
The fact that Georgism resembles feudalism in its reliance on land is, if not the main reason, at least one of the main reasons that it is difficult to implement in modern times.
I don't consider slavery an economic system but rather a feature of all of them. In an efficient capitalist system, one which is necessarily free market, slavery is so uneconomic that it ceases without much effort from abolitionists.
Attempting to create free markets is why we visit this site, is it not?
Posted by dave jr on 01/06/13 04:24 PM
I guess I don't understand why the antithesis to centralized power is anarchism. Isn't local and state government enough? If I don't want another layer of world government, does that make me an anarchist too?
Posted by Bischoff on 01/06/13 04:14 PM
DB: "Hoppe is very clear. Democracy places temporary leaders at the head of the artificial entity called the state. This creates and perpetuates a "tragedy of the commons."
BISCHOFF: I took your suggestion and googled Wikipedia. Here is what it says about the "Tragedy of the Commons":
"In economics, the tragedy of the commons is the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests."
What is the long-term best interest... ??? It is the ability to account for the contribution made by nature to the process of producing wealth by charging a fee on the basis of assessed value to be used as revenue for government services provided to all.
Your explanation of how Hoppe uses the "Tragedy of the Commons" phrase makes little sense to me. First of all, until the passage of the 17th Amendment, the federal government was a Republic in which democratic processes were strictly limited to settle questions within small groups or assemblies.
For Hoppe to call the American Republic a "Democracy" is inaccurate. A Democracy is not a stable form of government. Only a Tyrrany and a Republic is. Democracy and Anarchy are only transitional forms of government between Tyrrany and Republic.
So what does Hoppe lament... ??? That politicians come and go, or that the State is an artificial construct... ??? By this reasoning, the family is an artificial construct also, as instinctively humans will not form "families". Nevertheless, I will agree that families as an artificial construct preceeded the State by thousands of years.
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Äs instinctively humans will not form "families".
This is why we have so much trouble with your "analyses." You have a penchant for making up words and then using them without even defining them (in terms of what you have decided they mean) which often renders your perspectives most confusing.
And then you have an affection for such strange assertions as the one above.
-Certain birds apparently form family units and mate for life.
-Lions form prides.
-Female elephants are most social within a herd.
But the human family is an "artificial construct!"
There's plenty of evidence that this "artificial construct" has been around as long as homo sapiens themselves. But for you - without defining your terms - the family is "artificial."
It makes about as much sense as your rebuttal of Hoppe.
And of course there is no rebuttal.
Kings owned property and thus were likely LESS inclined to abuses the states they ruled.
Democracies - republics - call them what you will, are "ruled" by those who understand their time is limited and thus will tend to loot aggressively for as long as possible.
It is no coincidence that Bill and Hillary Clinton walked off with the silverware at the end of Bill's second term. This is reasonable behavior within the "democratic" environment.
The only solution is an anarchic one - limit government to the bare essentials and let community, kin and self-interest create livable societies within the bounds of natural law.
But since you constantly misdefine what anarchism is (merely the absence of state coercion) it is doubtful that any of this will draw a comprehensible response.
Or you will reply with more strange assertions such as the one regarding the "artificiality" of the human family (and no doubt its dependence on toilet training).
Posted by Bischoff on 01/06/13 03:47 PM
@ the Libertine
You are an Anarchist. I believe in constitutional government. I could give pages and pages of arguments for my side, but from the way you pose your questions to me, I know they will never be satisfactory. Therefore, I will refrain.
I will however answer your question #7.
LIBERTINE: "You claim the provisions w/i the const. "weren't imposed by the founders"... how does that jive w/'founding' hero George Washington marching a larger army against AMERICANS during the Whiskey Rebellion than he did against the ENGLISH during the Revolutionary War?"
BISCHOFF: Again, I want to point out to others who read your comment that the emotion provoking phrases you use, such as "founding hero George Washington", etc. are your way of expressing distain toward any kind of government.
As to the "Whiskey Rebellion", I believe Washington acted completely within the intent of the Constitution. It seems that you failed to read my explanation about excises as a source of revenue authorized to be collected by the federal government, and the purpose for which this excise was authorized by the Constitution.
Excises are a federal tax (governmental revenue) designed to control the domestic production of goods and commodities which could threaten the good order and survival of a state itself and of other states. The production of whiskey was levied with an excise to discourage its production as it undermined the good order and work ethic of the population.
The evasion of the excise, intended to curtail the production of whiskey, was a serious matter to Washington. Not to enforce compliance meant to violate the intent of the Constitution to protect states against subversion of good order.
As to the number of troops Washington used to put down the "Whiskey Rebellion", I depend on you for its accuracy.
Posted by Bischoff on 01/06/13 03:21 PM
You do seem to agree with my assessment about the family function, and how politicians actually sabotage it by advocating socialism.
Socialism is often compared to Capitalism as an economic system. It is a comparison which creates nothing but confusion.
Capitalism is an economic system wherein the primary factor of production is Capital. The other two economic systems are based on Labor and Land as the primary factors of production. These economic systems are known as Slavery and Feudalism respectively.
So what is Socialism... ??? Socialism is a distribution system wherein the distribution of wealth is to one extent or another mandated by government. IOW, it is a "managed" economy which goes along with a central bank "managed currency".
A capitalist economic system can have a socialist distribution system. BTW, this is the reality today in most of the world.
However, capitalism as an economic system is most effcient and beneficial to a majority of people when it is connected to a "free market" distribution system using a "free" currency, aka RBD currency as means of exchange. The value of RBD is based on the productivity of the private sector and its value is measured against a standard.
There is little of a "free market" distribution system left in the world. A "free market" distribution system relies on arbitrage to transform "use value" of a good or commodity into an "exchange value" to maximize utility.
A good "work ethic" is threatened by socialism. The trend toward poor "work ethic", or toward a lack of "work ethic", is alarming. If it continues, we will come to no good end. "Capital" maybe the primary factor in our economic system, but wealth cannot be produced without "Labor". Socialism discourages productive effort.
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/06/13 03:01 PM
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/06/13 02:29 PM
Obviously I have been unclear. Family, of course should teach their children, and lifelong whenever possible. Government has no place in that except where family has failed completely, and no other solution is forthcoming. Yes government(s) destroy work ethic, they do it very well. Statesmen are in short supply in every age. Now, they are laughed at, riduculed, and destroyed in whatever manner the PTB find most expedient.
Yes, voters go for the politician rather than the statesman nearly every time now. Which is the real reason we are where we are. Socialism has claimed the world, and without most of those who advocate it even being amenable to having it explained to them that that is what they are advocating.
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Statesmen are in short supply in every age. Now, they are laughed at, riduculed, and destroyed in whatever manner the PTB find most expedient.
You've made many good points in this thread ...
Posted by Bischoff on 01/06/13 01:10 PM
You take issue with my contention that habituation of adolescents is first and foremost a function to be performed by the family.
I make this statement based on human evolution. Man is the only being which has to survive by indirect transaction. A human infant requires its parents to teach and train it to survive in a terrestrial environment for which it was genetically not created, IOW it needs to be taught how to "work" in order to feed itself later in life.
When humans will instinctively pick up a lunch bucket and head off to work, habituation to do so will no longer be necessary. When things are plentiful, there seems little necessity to undergo habituation in order to sustain oneself. Yet, failing to learn how to "work" will quickly lead to want.
The family evolved during the hunt and gathering period when the male offspring had to be taught by the male parent on how to conduct the "hunt", and the female offspring was taught by the male parent to gather nutrients and keep the "home fire" burning.
The requirement for the family to habituate their young starts with toilet training and goes on to teach them to work for a living.
Your point that family failure to habituate and its attendant maladies is caused is often caused by interference of government in the habituation function of the family, gets no argument from me.
The "statesman" supports and encourages the function of the family to habituate by supporting a "work ethic". The "politician" actually sabotages it by promising "something for nothing".
The trouble is that instinct will cause the voter to go for the "politician", rather than the "statesman".
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 01/06/13 12:55 PM
'Constitutionalists' are simply another form of Collectivists who yearn for an "ultimate authority" to control society.
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 01/06/13 11:40 AM
"Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome: instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned…against faction and turbulence: I acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against: I acknowledge also the new form of Government may effectually prevent it: Yet, there is another thing it will as effectually do: it will oppress and ruin the people…I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people or by the tyranny of rulers? I imagine, Sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny."
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined…The Honorable Gentleman who presides told us, that to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed to them. Oh, Sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only necessary to assemble the people! Your arms wherewith you could defend yourselves are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny: And how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders?"
"If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object…But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire."
"Fear is the passion of slaves."
PATRICK HENRY quotes.
Its amazing that 21st-century Federalists (like Bischoff) are STILL using the same failed arguments to defend a system that FAILED decades and decades ago in its stated purpose of 'limiting' the central govt. it est. The Anti-Federalists were RIGHT 220+ years ago... how many more centuries will pass before folks realize it?
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 01/06/13 11:34 AM
None of the 'constitutionalists' ever do answer how the problems created by relatively smaller nation-states are solved by combining these smaller states into larger ones...
I've even heard many 'constitutionalists' say they'd have no problem w/world govt.--as long as there is a CONSTITUTION to limit its powers!
These people just never learn do they?
Posted by AnarchoLibertine on 01/06/13 11:25 AM
@ Mr. Bischoff
Well, you didn't even attempt to answer my previous two very simple and direct Q's, so I'll try some more:
1. Do you have any evidence that each and every INDIVIDUAL living in America agreed to "delegate" any powers at all to the 'founders'?
2. How do INDIVIDUALS delegate rights (such as the right to tax and impose unilateral contracts) to OTHER INDIVIDUALS that NONE of them have?
3. If "all men are created equal", how does one INDIVIDUAL (or group of them) derive the RIGHT to coercively rule/own another INDIVIDUAL (or group of them)?
4. If 10% of the people on your street decide to hire the same contractor to paint their houses pink because they think its "just plain common sense"... do they have a right to force EVERYONE else to do same?
5. Do you know, approximately, what % of people were allowed to vote in late 18th century America?
6. If the 'founders' are the real authorities on "the true meaning" of the const., how do you explain the Alien/Sedition Acts passed by the 'founders' themselves?
7. You claim the provisions w/i the const. "weren't imposed by the founders"... how does that jive w/'founding' hero George Washington marching a larger army against AMERICANS during the Whiskey Rebellion than he did against the ENGLISH during the Revolutionary War?
8. How does a document (at the time, deemed to be a WILD divergence from the stated mission of AMENDING the Articles Of Confederations) written in secrecy by a few dozen political appointees, later voted on in state legislatures (themselves elected by small minorities of people w/i the states), in 1787-1789 have to do w/me or ANYONE else in 2013--is there evidence we signed it or agreed to its terms in any way?
9. Would you blame a slave baby born on a plantation in 1830 for its own enslavement or claim that its ancestors (no matter how remote) 'contracted' to be slaves w/the owner and that both slave and master then has the right to impose this 'contract' on succeeding generations?
Posted by jwhitehawke on 01/06/13 10:15 AM
Shoot the Messenger... Most people blame the politicians, but the facts remain that the global international order (international banks) make the decisions and set the tone for values placed on commodities. Currency and exchange, human services, food, oil, durable goods and humans are ALL commodities.
The Maritime Admiralty law... ... Click to view link
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/06/13 06:45 AM
Bischoff: "... habituation of adolescents... 'family failure'... "
Family failure and all of its attendant maladies seems to be the most consistant result of excessive government. Inside the Beltway may not be as mind-shredding as living on the peninsula. Please, take a vacation. Commune with redwoods, or something farther afield. Yosemite or Tahiti. Outside of Frisco at least.